legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Connors
Defendant was convicted of possession for sale of methamphetamine and marijuana. He admitted two prior strikes (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (d), (e)(2), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)), three prior felony convictions (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (a)), and three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). He appeals claiming the court erred by failing to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether the identity of a confidential informant should have been disclosed. He also asserts he did not receive all the custody credits to which he was entitled, CALJIC No. 2.01 as to circumstantial evidence should have been given, and he had a right to a jury trial on whether the upper term on one count should be imposed. After the original briefs were filed, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham), which held that imposition of an upper term under Californias sentencing law generally violated a defendants constitutional rights. (Id. at p. [127 S.Ct. 856, 860].) Court allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs on this issue. Defendants prior convictions and parole status at the time he committed the crime were factors that need not have been determined by a jury and support an upper term sentence.
Court modify the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect defendants actual and good conduct credits, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale